He loves and she loves

Just Causes

Password required

January 18, 2007

"When consistency is obtained, the hypothesis becomes a theory"

We've had an adorable cardinal couple -- Cardinalis cardinalis -- haunting the site for years down Chelsea (female above in the boughs of the Silver Maple the other day), but in our youth growing up in New Hampshire and then making our home in Massachusetts once we'd flown the nest, we always had robins, Baltimore orioles, pigeons and such, but rarely a cardinal. It seems like we've had them for only the last 15-20 years or so. Some would say that global warming has enticed these gorgeous Passeriformes farther north in the past couple of decades, and it may be so. But are we -- or more likely larger forces -- responsible for the migrations of our fellow species upon the earth? Click here for sound.

Then there's this revolting development -- linked by Drudge -- reported by blogger Marc Morano of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works [Note: Drudge link has caused EPW Senate site to crash temporarily]:

The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

It is with the utmost arrogance that apparently scientifically trained people think that man has any effect on the climate. In the past, natural disasters were blamed on God, but since our “Global Warming ‘Scientists’” do not believe in God, it must be the fault of man.

Googling the American Meteorological Society, we came upon a number of refreshingly skeptical bloggers, including Steven Foley of The Minority Report, who asks rhetorically "In which part of the scientific method does it say 'get a consensus of other researchers to agree with you then present said information as fact'?" and offers a poetically laconic answer to his own question:

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

• 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

• 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune. The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore's agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

Gore was going to be confronted by someone that did not march in lock step to his Gaia worshipping party line on the fictional Global Warming fantasy that man is evil and selfishly consuming all of the Earth's precious resources so mankind must be controlled and regulated within an inch of its life by the elites through the power of the State , which is all knowing and superior to mankind.

Al Gore found out that he would be dealing with a man who has always dealt in fact and logic. This has no place in Al's scheme of how the world works. Since Al doesn't deal in fact and therefore can't debate on the factual merits of his theory - he would naturally never consent to talk to Lomborg (who would make him look like a class A idiot)

As for Ms. Cullen - if she were a real scientist, she would be able to allow for debate and dissenting views. The fact that The Weather Channel considers her to be their top climatologist tells us that they should stick to telling us what the weather is right now. How can we even trust them to give a forecast... they'll simply "decide" what the weather is going to be and then stick to it... after all they couldn't possibly be wrong now could they. Geeze.

Hello, Sissy. I offer here a fact, for which you and your readers may supply your own hypotheses: On January 6th of this year, three timber rattlesnakes were observed outside a den site in the mountains of Eastern New York. Normal emergence for this species is mid April, and this is the only record of them ever emerging in January in this region. On this same day, maple sap was running in trees that are usually dormant for another two months. By any modern measure, these are unprecedented events for the prevailing climate conditions of this area and outside the "normal range of variation".

One data point (and anecdotal at that) does not a theory make. But there is a great wealth of verifiable data that change is taking place - however we may quibble about the relative contribution of our species' part in it. I dislike smug scientists and simplistic political opportunists just as others here do, but that does not address the consequences of our actions or inactions. It seems to me if we are going to reject some courses of action in favor of others it should be an informed (and timely) choice.

So dope slap Mr. Gore when he deserves it, certainly, and Exxon/Mobil too while we're at it, but then we would do well to try and get the best picture possible on climate change in the time we have and respond decisively. Even the Marines aim for the 70% solution.